Sunday, April 23, 2006

Another Non Story?

Remember Dana Priest? She was the reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize just last Monday for her reporting on the secret CIA prisons scattered across Europe that sent the Continent along with our own Leftists reeling in a frenzy of outrage, foaming mouths and all out Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Then came word that a CIA Officer had been fired for leaking information, specifically information directly related to the European prisons after the officer failed a polygraph test and provided an admission of guilt. Now comes word via the New York Times that European officials cannot find ANY EVIDENCE that these CIA prisons ever existed in Europe. Nada. Zip. Zero. Hahahaha!

Guess what just happened? Countermeasures! A sting operation! The prisons NEVER existed except as a ruse to tempt this CIA officer (who was a Clinton appointee and contributed the personal maximum to John Kerry) into giving out a non-story! It looks like the Washington Post ran with FAKE classified info AND the Pulitzer Committee gave a "prestigious award" to a story that has as much substance as to it as a cloud of vapor.

Hark! Hear that giant sucking noise? That's media credibility folks. All those layers of fact checking and responsible reporting? Hahahaha! (Thanks to CaptainsQuarters and Strata-Sphere.com for the coverage)

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, 1st.........that's it? no prize? oh well

4/23/2006 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

no prize but the satisfaction of having missed 09:00 mass again.

4/23/2006 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guess what just happened? Countermeasures! A sting operation! The prisons NEVER existed except as a ruse to tempt this CIA officer (who was a Clinton appointee and contributed the personal maximum to John Kerry) into giving out a non-story! It looks like the Washington Post ran with FAKE classified info AND the Pulitzer Committee gave a "prestigious award" to a story that has as much substance as to it as a cloud of vapor.

So it was a political move to fire a career civil servant? Sounds like a totalitarian thing to do. SCC, you better watch out if the Bushivecs can do it, so can Daley!

4/23/2006 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it was tactical move to identify a mole and prosecute someone who had broken federal law, violated the oath he swore to, and placed future intelligence operations(i.e. American lives) in jeopardy. Where is the righteous indignation of Plamegate from the left? That giant sucking noise is Ted Kennedy finishing a plate of lamb chops for breakfast. Yeah he was set up. So was Pac Man and the rest of those Austin pooches.

4/23/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A career civil servant who has admitted to leaking numerous operations. Go read SCC's links you pooch. This is going to turn into a backlash against the CIA being a rogue agency actually working AGAINST an elected government. The shadow government conspiracy that everyone is always assuming is a neo-con cabal is actually a bunch of leftists and communists still buried at Langley after the 1950's and 60's.

4/23/2006 12:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a little payback on the media , yeeeeeeeeeeee ahh , liberal cocksuckers, always trying to stand on the "public's right to know" platform. well now i see that platform is not only missing a few planks but it's ready to collapse... freak em serves em right, i wonder how that reporter feels having been used like a $2.00 whore...

4/23/2006 12:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, stop getting your news from C-BS, ABC and NBC and start reading SCC's news links too.

4/23/2006 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Maybe it was tactical move to identify a mole and prosecute someone who had broken federal law, violated the oath he swore to, and placed future intelligence operations(i.e. American lives) in jeopardy.

Will they fire GW next?

4/23/2006 01:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A career civil servant who has admitted to leaking numerous operations. Go read SCC's links you pooch. This is going to turn into a backlash against the CIA being a rogue agency actually working AGAINST an elected government. The


it's not the CIA's job to tell Bush/Cheney excatly what they want to hear so they can go and attack whoever they want to attack.

Remember boys, Bush II can't be in office forever! If the system is not set up out-side the current political fever, ANYONE can demand what Bush II demands!

4/23/2006 01:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ex-CIA official: White House ignored doubts on WMD

4/23/2006 01:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just like those "commie" ret. Generals, if you are going to tell the truth, you'd better wait until after you get your pension!

suntimes.com:

''The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit in to the policy,'' Tyler Drumheller told CBS' ''60 Minutes'' for an interview to be broadcast tonight. The network released excerpts ahead of the airing.

4/23/2006 01:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's not the CIA's job to tell Bush/Cheney excatly what they want to hear so they can go and attack whoever they want to attack.

It's also not the CIA's job to undermine the elected government and leak classified info. The CIA is not a branch of government - they exist to provide the elected government with information. They don't determine policy, which they have been trying to do for years now. The CIA has been LYING and LEAKING for years (look at Joe Wilson - a proven liar).

4/23/2006 03:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
it's not the CIA's job to tell Bush/Cheney excatly what they want to hear so they can go and attack whoever they want to attack.

It's also not the CIA's job to undermine the elected government and leak classified info. The CIA is not a branch of government - they exist to provide the elected government with information.

-------------

It's their duty to provide **CORRECT** info.

It's not the "elected" reps to twist it, conjole it, or force it in different directions.

4/23/2006 04:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we adopt the administration's guidelines for leaks - only those leaks approved by the administration are allowed, all others merit punishment, we will have a policy very similar to China.

I saw on PBS News Hours last night that there are 32 reporters in Chinese prisons currently and that ALL politcal reporting is state controlled.

I've never been a fan of repressive authoritarian governments such as the Chinese Communists. I am amazed that the Bush administration wishes to go this direction.

Perhaps they have become lost in the forest-and-trees problem when one mistakes means for ends.

4/23/2006 05:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bush administration is extremely and transparently selective about the leaks it seeks to investigate and punish. The only leaks which they dislike are the ones which bring the President political embarrassment, not which generate harm to our national security. They exhibit anger and concern about leaks only when the leaks expose conduct by them which is highly controversial and where even its legality is dubious, at best.

4/23/2006 05:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What used to be called 'National Security' is now 'Bush Security'.

If the leak enhances Bush's security it's a good leak. Otherwise it's a bad leak.

4/23/2006 05:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snappy catch phrases don't make for an argument-if you have something to say to support yourself, please do so. How can you compare letting the press know the political motivations behind the Iraq conspiracy theories (Plame) with leaking information about prisons used to interogate people that would like to nuke your first amendment ass off the planet. And I think if they got to pick who the first of us infidels to go would be, it's the liberals like you. That's right, GW is working to protect your dumb ass, people like John Kerry, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore et al, and all of your rights to express your liberal idiocies. It's sad that the people who are most vocal about how Bush is trampling our rights...ex. Nancy Pelosi's outrage over wiretaps...are the very people that piss off Muslim fundamentalists the most. Hmmmm...who would they kill first, a church going God fearing republican, or a brokeback, whiney, entitlement sucking, democratic hippie? I'm guessing you'd be first hippie-it's a shame you don't appreciate the people who are protecting your dumb hippie ass. Hippie.

4/23/2006 11:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who says those prisons in eastern Europe didn't exist? We're talking about the CIA. They have the ability to make things dissapear. It's part of what they do.(now you see it....now you don't.)

4/24/2006 12:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Hippie said...

Anonymous said...
Snappy catch phrases don't make for an argument-if you have something to say to support yourself, please do so.

...

Hippie.

-----------------

Nor does name-calling.

Your logic is as flawed as you are. If the Jihadists main target is liberal-scum (as you say), and so is Bush's target (and your's), then why do you think that they are not the same? (my enemies' enemey is my friend)

Bush (and you) are the same as the Jihadists because they (and you) hate freedom (speach, press, et al). You said so yourself. Throw a burka on your wife, face East and get on your knees.

You can't have it every way. Actions speak louder than words. You can't be the defender of freedom and then cast stones on those people (liberals) that want to practice those freedoms. That makes you a hypocrate.

Bush is not here to help you, unless you are a multinational corporation. The rest of us be damned.

4/24/2006 12:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With THIS guy in the W.H., UbL better be more worried about liberals....



Bush the Decider

4/24/2006 12:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush the Leaker

4/24/2006 01:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCC, you heard it from me first!

Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
Utilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges

4/24/2006 01:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The name calling was thrown in to entertain, hippie. I didn't say I hate freedom of speech, I'm saying that sacrificing the right to know every little detail of our national security is a small price to pay to protect our security-and therefore our rights. Yes, I will give up my right to have untapped phone conversations to the middle east so that your dumb hippie ass doesn't get blown to bits. What a dim view to think that there are absolute freedoms...you're no better than the shit head on the street who "knows his rights!" All speech is not protected (no yelling fire in a theater), and we as Americans make sacrifices in some areas to be secure in others. Seriously, are you that dumb, or simply uneducated? Oh, and Bush isn't looking to kill liberals he's trying to protect them as well as everyone else, so I have no idea what that whole enemy of my enemy thing is... I respect people with different views, just not people who latch on to feel good bullshit without understanding it. That would be many in Hollywood (are you a Mumia supporter to hippie???), and YOU! Hippie.

4/24/2006 02:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear SCC: I've read your links on this subject, lest you or your followers should wonder and I think you've so overstated your case that you can be accused of deliberately engaging in misinformation. You are pitting the Pulitzer Prize winning word of a Washington Post writer against that of the European Union that they couldn't find any "evidence" of "secret prisons" after some 50 hours of testimony. Just how reliable is that???? How many times as detective have we interviewed numerous "witnesses" and found no evidence based upon their statements that the shooter we have in custody was even at the scene. Do you really think that the President of Ubekistan is going to admit that he permitted the CIA to use his country for secret interrogations? It only makes sense that "no" evidence would be found. That's like expecting Clinton to admit that he was having extramarrital affairs while President or before or after! Its possible that there are errors in Ms. Priest's article but if you look at the statements coming out of Langley - they have not once denied the existence of these "prisons" they are merely looking to identify the snitch.

Also your sources for your information are so far off the main stream media as to be consider part of the right's lunetic fringe.

4/24/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and the Washington Post is "Main Stream?"

4/24/2006 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The name calling was thrown in to entertain, hippie. I didn't say I hate freedom of speech,

***You just hate speach like mine, right?

I'm saying that sacrificing the right to know every little detail of our national security is a small price to pay to protect our security-and therefore our rights. Yes, I will give up my right to have untapped phone conversations to the middle east so that your dumb hippie ass doesn't get blown to bits.

*** Boy you are naive! I bet when Joe on the street tells you that he has nothing on him you believe it too. We would not know just who or what Bush is listening to because, by you, it's a-ok that he doesn't even tell us that he is listening.

What a dim view to think that there are absolute freedoms...

*** Which absolute freedoms? Like the one's in the Consistution? The one's that Bush and I swore to up hold. I saw him on TV reciting the words, you might have slept thru your oath.

you're no better than the shit head on the street who "knows his rights!" All speech is not protected (no yelling fire in a theater),

*** Poor analogy. Yelling fire in a theatre is perfectly fine if there is a fire in the theatre, dumbass. I ASSume you meant when there is NO fire, right? That is correct, pat yourself on the back, because you do not have the right to cause harm to people. However, the right to not have warrantless searches performed against me is my right, and yours. Don't worry, *I* won't take that right away from you, even if you are just a Ditto Head.

and we as Americans make sacrifices in some areas to be secure in others. Seriously, are you that dumb, or simply uneducated? Oh, and Bush isn't looking to kill liberals he's trying to protect them as well as everyone else,

*** HAHAHAHAHAHA again, naive! So so so naive. Please quit talking and sit there and try to look smart.

so I have no idea what that whole enemy of my enemy thing is...

*** Again, don't try too hard, you might hurt yourself.

I respect people with different views,

*** Right right right I get it. as long as they have the save POV as u. Boy, what a true American Hero.

To be a wealthy Republican is to be a wimp, the worst sort of phony and fake, a pampered huckster, hypocrite and con man. To be a poor Republican today is to be part bully and part bitch. You get to bully others in the name of freedom (which you won't allow others to have)(or have the US Army do it), condoning torture, theft and murder of myriad small countries. But in the meantime you get screwed and your children and grandchildren get robbed and raped.

Continue with your "funny" name-calling.

4/24/2006 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank God my grandfather landed on Normandy and was later shot out of a bell tower by a Nazi, so you fools can be fascists 60 years later!

4/24/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Been watching "The Longest Day"? Is that how he nicknamed you Tinker Bell?

4/24/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he was still alive, I'd tell him just how fucking funny you think you are.

4/24/2006 01:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he was still alive, I'd tell him just how fucking funny you think you are.

4/24/2006 01:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey hippie, really there's no sense in talking to you, because I assume you are an adult, and therefore pretty set in your ways..."Don't confuse me with the facts...I've made up my mind!" I'll just ignore the mindless part of your drivel, but no-Constitutional rights are not absolute. Throughout American history we have been striking balances between freedom and the sacrifices we make to keep them (ex. taxes). You have "Freedom of Speech," but you can't yell "fire!" when there is none, in a crowded theater. This is the simplest example, which you obviously failed to grasp since you stated that "the right to not have warrantless searches performed against me is my right, and yours." You claim to be a police officer, but you believe we have that right? I guess you've never searched a car incident to arrest, or a person you thought might be armed, or any number of exceptions to your "right." And yes, I beleieve that a tapped phone call to Pakistan is another sacrifice that I'm willing to make in the name of public safety. You may disagree, but you should educate yourself before doing so. Feel good liberalism is great for college campuses and theory, but really bad at keeping your hippie ass from getting killed. I'm glad there's people who disagree, it creates a nice ballance-I will say too I'm glad you never worked with me..."no, you can't search that guy-you don't have a warrant!!" I'm sure your great at whatever desk you work behind. Open your eyes! Hippie.

4/24/2006 02:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Dear SCC: I've read your links on this subject, lest you or your followers should wonder and I think you've so overstated your case that you can be accused of deliberately engaging in misinformation. You are pitting the Pulitzer Prize winning word of a Washington Post writer against that of the European Union that they couldn't find any "evidence" of "secret prisons" after some 50 hours of testimony. Just how reliable is that????

--------------

It's because the Washinton Post is LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERALLIBERAL

4/24/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether the Post is considered a "liberal" newspaper or not is irrelevant. It is one of this country's most honored and respected newspapers, as is the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe and on occasion the Chicago Tribune. Certainly, the Tribune is anything but a liberal newspaper. My point about the "main stream" media is that its standards are leap years ahead of some rag published by a political writer with an agenda as are most of the writings offered by the lunetic fringe. Sometimes there are a element of truth in those postings but most of the time they are merely public rantings with little sum and no substance.

4/24/2006 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The standards for "main stream" media that are slanted toward one point of view regardless of fact, are as unreliable as anything else. And the fact that they cloud their biases by ascerting they are "main stream" shows even less trustworthiness (thus lower standards) then a forthright opinion piece with stated political leanings.

4/25/2006 12:50:00 PM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts